Let's all chuckle at the "Russian" intelligence report

On the last page of the Intelligence Report, you will find this

they literally include a confidence chart based on suspicion that the election was influenced by russia in the intelligence report....

this is so funny hahaha lmfao im dying

Reading more you will find the clause:
"Unless otherwise stated, the Intelligence Community's judgments are not derived via statistical analysis."

what the fuck?, like that literally means there are no facts in this INTELIGENCE REPORT


That is why they call it an intelligence report :)


a confidence chart, likely something you will find on some introverts tumblr.
confidence increases significantly with alcohol consumption

1 Like


also they include a propaganda chart,

RT did a better job on youtube than CNN
lol this document is trash


Those pesky Russians are always up to no good.

To be honest, I just don;t understand the 'end game' to the Russian finger pointing. It is beyond ridiculous at this point. This isn't 1986 and this is not the cold war.

1 Like

I did listen to an interesting podcast with Sam Harris and Garry Kasparov, talking about this matter.
Like most things, worth keeping an open mind. Unless, of course, you are in possession of all of the facts!

1 Like

did anyone see the original 15 page doc? it was a joke. non techies took it so serious... jaw dropping...

1 Like

I finished my beer... then I found this thread... I now want more beer...


I think this page was accidentally left out. My sources say it was a classified revision which was redacted from the final report, before release.


I can't really chuckle.

I browsed through it, and there are facts, plainly stated. If you doubt them, then you can call them "claims" instead of "facts". Perhaps you wished there was evidence with all the names in it? That would have jeopardized the intelligence operations, persons, and equipment used to gather the intelligence - this has never been done in the history of intelligence agencies. I suppose any US president could ask for these details if he wanted the facts.

Why on Earth would you guys distrust your own intelligence agency making "claims" about a foreign autocracy more than you would distrust the "claims" posited by the said foreign autocracy, even when you know that the said foreign autocracy is in a deep conflict of interest with your own government politics, and is certainly bound to act against it with all the means available to it (both necessary and sufficient to achieve the change)? Do you really think the said foreign autocracy is going to play "nicely", whatever "nicely" means?

There is no country in the world other than your own that is tasked with being beneficial to you. Of course one should be critical, but within reason. What else could the intelligence agency have published?

I find the material very clear and to the point. It matches my own observations of certain individuals and groups on the internet and how they dissipate and associate the information produced by the said foreign autocracy channels. It also matches several EU intelligence reports on the subject of the said foreign autocracy influence on certain groups of people. It also matches the pattern of the said foreign autocracy behavior better than any other model publicly presented to day.

Being cynical about these reports won't change the degree of truth in what they "claim".

Look, I just wanted to give a different opinion on the subject, and start off a few non-cynical thoughts on the subject, no more no less. Don't take what I say for being claims of absolute truth either - I am not looking to start a debate on the subject, because it will end up in general politics, and general politics is currently strongly discouraged here, so we can focus on nicer things than hurting each other's feelings.

Just, you know, be mindful guys.


I thought politics is off-limits since US election day?


True. I just found no other way to just put forward the question. I'll try to rephrase my line of questioning one more time for clarity. If I ask the following 3-4 questions:

  • What can you really expect from an intelligence agency report? How often do you get to see one in public?
  • Should you really indiscriminately distrust everything your own intelligence agency says?
  • What can you actually ask from your own intelligence agency?

With the caveat that I know how many privacy issues, propaganda, inaccuracies, etc., come from my/your own intelligence agencies, I just want to highlight the following question:

How are we really supposed to read this material, and with what personal background context?

I read one thing, (the proverbial) you read another.

Surely not everything can be deemed propaganda, fake news, and indiscriminately distrusted? Because then, nothing anyone says matters. Then the science is dead.


the source of the information is CNN and they refuse to give sources or show any proof other then their word. where the information comes from again we only have their word.
soooo im just going to link a cnn article where they say according to a poll only 32% of Americans actually trust cnn. they blaim this that and whatever, but when they say "the president is working with the Russians trust us" the answer is no we dont trust you.

Apparently if Trump says it it's true. Everything is fake news unless it's something negative about Hillary Clinton. Then 4chan is also a solid source of information. It's amazing. This is a website full of people that weren't savvy enough to realize that Trump is also establishment. It's a website filled with members that posted conspiracy theories from Breitbart, Project Veritas and anonymous 4chan discussions as factual. Unfortunately, a lot of members here are at the very least politically ignorant and at worst not that bright. So just let it go and enjoy the show. Unfortunately for them they'll get to feel how wrong they were very soon on their own skin.


I was referring to the OP link to a www.dni.gov report, not CNN.

CNN being the first to publicly report about that does not make them original source, first, or second hand. CNN being the first to publicly report about that does not either make them truthful - they may have lied about it based on indications, but while the fact may become proven true at a later date, at the time it may have been a lie, or a misrepresentation of an indication as evidence, or a fact.

The public still does not have the evidence connecting the Russian government agencies to hacking. The intelligence report does not show the evidence, as OP seems notice with dismay shared by many, including myself.

It does not mean that evidence does not exist, though. Interestingly, it also does not mean that the claims in the intelligence report are not facts.

The logic says:

If there is evidence (whether I have it or not), then these claims are facts. Since I can't have the evidence, I must accept or reject these claims on faith, and on faith the intelligence agencies have judged the evidence correctly. The highest government officials can access the evidence, if there is any evidence. I must accept or reject also their claims on faith, and on faith the highest government officials have judged the evidence correctly.

Why should we not have faith in our agencies and highest government officials? If you cry wolf, there still may be wolf. Not as many times, but still. Do we have anything else to go by? Isn't it better to improve the accuracy of the cryer, than to dismiss him altogether?

I think the most entertaining aspect of this "report" is the several thousand dollars worth of tax payer money that went into it.


People keep forgetting that information about Russian hacking existed months before the election. Even the FBI has warned about it back in August. But that wasn't as interesting to report as the latest stupid thing that Trump decided to say that week. A lot of interesting pieces of information flew under the radar because of sensationalism. It was more relevant for the press to report about "grab her by the pussy" than to report about matters of national security.

1 Like

I know why you're saying this, but somehow I still can't let go demanding critical thinking, logical thinking, and accurate labelling of things on this forum. I am also convinced that the proverbial whip is indiscriminate of their skin and mine, once it starts whipping.


Unfortunately for everyone, we have to live with them and their choices, and they have to live with themselves and their choices in spite of: impatience, modern environment, failed parenting strategies, low self esteem, groundless sense of entitlement, narcissism, unashamed promotion of self, lack of focus, laziness, and ego boosting by reinforcement of their own biases through social network abuse (some of those social networks I intend to continue visiting, like this one). And we will have to continue living side by side and growing with each other for years to come.

But I totally understand why you've given up on it and I don't blame you ;) .


It's like trying to demand that your non-K CPU magically overclocks itself but on top of being locked it's also incompatible with the motherboard.